This study investigated the surface characteristics and wettability behaviour of grey poplar (Populus × canescens) compared with spruce (Picea abies) in order to evaluate its potential as an alternative raw material for bonded structural wood products. Surface roughness was analysed on freshly planed radial surfaces using amplitude and functional roughness parameters, complemented by multivariate factor analysis and dynamic contact angle measurements. The results showed that grey poplar sapwood exhibited roughness values comparable to spruce (Ra ≈ 6–7 μm; Rz ≈ 35–40 μm). Grey poplar heartwood showed slightly higher roughness and greater variability, which can be attributed to its heterogeneous anatomical structure characterised by larger vessel elements and higher extractive content. Hybrid roughness parameters indicated favourable bonding-related surface characteristics in sapwood due to lower Rpk values, suggesting fewer protruding fibres, while higher Rvk values reflected the diffuse-porous anatomical structure of poplar. Static contact angle measurements revealed higher initial values for grey poplar (37.9° for heartwood and 41.9° for sapwood) compared with spruce (31.7°), indicating lower initial wettability with polar liquids. However, dynamic measurements demonstrated faster early-stage spreading in grey poplar heartwood (Δθ = 26.1° within the first second) compared with sapwood (16.8°) and spruce (17.5°), suggesting that vessel-driven capillary uptake may facilitate liquid penetration once wetting begins. Overall, the results indicate that grey poplar—particularly its sapwood fraction—exhibits surface characteristics comparable to spruce after planing. Despite slightly lower initial wettability, its spreading behaviour and surface morphology indicate favourable conditions for adhesive interaction. These findings support the potential use of grey poplar as an alternative raw material for laminated structural products such as glulam or bonded panels, provided that adhesive application parameters are properly adjusted.
Csiha et al. (Tue,) studied this question.